Symbol versus Substance in Legislative Activity: The Case of Illegal Immigration

SINCE 1970 ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION TO THE U.S. FROM MEXICO AND LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO STOP THAT ILLEGAL FLOW HAVE BEEN INCREASINGLY EVIDENT. SEVERAL RESTRICTIVE BILLS HAD PASSED ONE OR THE OTHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS, BUT NONE HAD BEEN ENACTED UNTIL 1986. THE LAST ACT OF LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE CONGRESS IN 1986 WAS A BILL WHICH PURPORTS TO REDUCE THE FLOW OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. THIS PAPER EXPLORES WHAT APPEARS TO BE A MAJOR INCONSISTENCY IN POLITICAL BEHAVIOR. ONE WOULD EXPECT INCREASED LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY, AIMED AT RESTRICTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY INCREASED EFFORTS TO ENFORCE CURRENT LEGISLATION. INSTEAD, HOWEVER, THE STATISTICAL RESULTS REPORTED HERE SHOW THAT WHEN LAWMAKERS PROPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD RESTRICT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, AT THE SAME TIME THE GROWTH OF THE BUDGET OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE HAS BEEN REDUCED. THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS REASONS WHY THESE RESULTS MAY NOT BE PECULIAR AT ALL. RATHER THEY MAY BE CONSISTENT WITH VOTE MAXIMIZING BEHAVIOR BY POLITICIANS BESET BY CERTAIN TYPES OF CONFLICTING DEMANDS.